All I can add to this discussion is that ETTR is helpful as a guide for certain shots, but in some cases, you don't want to use ETTR at all. It's very useful if you understand its limitations.

I'm curious about this. I've never found a situation where ETTR (defined as the RAW data for non-specular highlights within 1/3-stop of clipping, but not actually clipped) was not the best digital exposure strategy. Exposing in this way always results in the lowest noise, greatest captured DR, most accurate colors, and greatest processing flexibility. What exception have you discovered?

I'm curious about this. I've never found a situation where ETTR (defined as the RAW data for non-specular highlights within 1/3-stop of clipping, but not actually clipped) was not the best digital exposure strategy. Exposing in this way always results in the lowest noise, greatest captured DR, most accurate colors, and greatest processing flexibility. What exception have you discovered?

Choosing an ETTR exposure over a shorter exposure won't ever do harm (that I can think of), but sometimes the ETTR exposure may not be long enough to get the best result. Sometimes exposing to the right will leave your subject under-exposed. If the highlights are relatively unimportant and you need to capture the image in one exposure, exposing for the subject might be preferable to ETTR.

I have read the thread now and I want to answer directly your first post. First some words about me to allow for consideration of my opinion. Im not a big artist, Im a hobbyist photographer and graphician struggling to connect again with what I once did. Also I cant compare analog with digital, I only shoot digital since 3 years and have a background in 3D Graphic and Animation.

Now regarding the topic: I say, only the result matters. Different medium, different approaches, different outcomes, same people.

Whoever was shooting crap with analog will continue to do so with digital, and the other way around. But wait... I hear someone yelling: "BUT... I KNEW a fried who was shooting crap with his Digicam and as soon as he got that Analog 35mm he got really inspired and becomes now the second Anselm...youre wrong, youre so WROOOOONG!!!"

Well obviously in this case, there must be something in the personality of the person that he is able to develop his talent in the first place. Maybe a different tool can act as a trigger, and a person may prefer one tool over the other because of workflow and results, but AT THE END it is always ME who has to have his own ideas, OR NOT.

And thats what counts in my eyes and not repeated talk about good old times wich where better, and that now its getting worse and worse. Dont mistake me, if you feel with digital it has become worse, I would not argue with you about you feeling, thats perfectly ok. But it cant be a general thing.

And about a generation "who cant see", I would be very reluctant to make such bold statements. Sure, digital is/can be snapshooting, and maybe there is indeed a generation rising wich "cannot see", for whatever reason. But then it must be more than just a digital cam in the hands of these people, that alone would be an explanation all too easy.

Choosing an ETTR exposure over a shorter exposure won't ever do harm (that I can think of), but sometimes the ETTR exposure may not be long enough to get the best result. Sometimes exposing to the right will leave your subject under-exposed. If the highlights are relatively unimportant and you need to capture the image in one exposure, exposing for the subject might be preferable to ETTR.

Which is why I included the bit about specular highlights in my definition. There are some situations where it is acceptable or even desirable to blow some of the highlights for the sake of the rest of the image. But if the subject's DR is within the capture range of the camera, it is always better to bias the exposure to the right.